Can God change his mind?

[Andy T.]

I guess I'm curious as to what you think my system is, since I haven't posted any of my systematic theologies on here. You're accusing me of things based on a few posts. To be honest, I don't feel the need to justify myself before your philosophical wanderings.

What 'caused' A&E to sin? I don't know all the interworkings of the human will, especially before the Fall. But I can say definitively it was not God. And it's not God who causes man to sin after the Fall. If that is 'inconsistent' with some other Calvinist dude in some other corner of the Internet, I could care less. I don't even consider myself a Calvinist (don't like the term), and probably don't hold to Limited Atonement (in the traditional Cal sense). You have all these ideas about me and my system based on a few posts, but I think all you have are canned arguments that you pull out in every corner of the Internet where you go campaigning against the evil Cals.

 

[Andy T.]

I hold to libertarian freedom, meaning when a man chooses to sin he could have done otherwise. I don't believe a "sin nature" makes people unable to do otherwise, it only means that they are influenced by sin in this world, at odds with God and in need of forgiveness and reconciliation.

I'd like you to elaborate on this a bit more. Explain how your view of libertarian free will differs from the heretical Pelagian view. Do you believe that man is neutral or born neutral?

I'm trying to establish that it is the result of your system, but you refuse to answer my questions with regard to why Adam and Eve originally sinned. They didn't have a sin nature, so what CAUSED them to sin?

I answered this in my immediate post above, but probably not your satisfaction, since I'm not following along with your canned Internet arguments.

 

[Andy T.]

I recently had a week long discussion with a Calvinist (here and here) who believed just that and he explained why logically this was the ultimate conclusion that all Calvinists would have to come to. I disagree with him obviously, but I only point this out because there are all different types of Calvinists and many various points regarding this discussion. If you are unaware of the divine culpability issues with your system then maybe you should explore them a little further and stop acting sooo shocked by this line of questioning as if they are new to this debate.

First, I only care about being consistent with Scripture (don't we all).

Second, I'm not shocked by your arguments (seen them before), but it does not make them any less ugly or uncharitable (or nonsensical).

 

[olegig]

Sometimes I think we under estimate or do not fully comprehend the vastness of creation.
Scripture says God made man in His own image.
Now I know man does not appear like a burning bush; so this statement must have more to it than mere appearance.

Paul says man brought sin into the world. Sin is darkness and darkness is the absence of God.
Sin is not a commodity that was created, sin is the void when one turns from the Creator.

 

[Robert Snow]

I agree - it's an ugly sight to see a Christian accuse another Christian of thinking God makes men sin. Ugly indeed. You might as well call that person an unbeliever going to hell. (And I do think that is the sentiment shared by some around here.)

The door swings both ways. There has been many unkind remarks made by Calvinists toward those who disagree with their doctrine as well.

 

[Skandelon]

I'd like you to elaborate on this a bit more. Explain how your view of libertarian free will differs from the heretical Pelagian view. Do you believe that man is neutral or born neutral?

I thought I answered this? I believe man is born with the nature to sin, but I don't believe the sin nature makes one unable to respond to God's appeals for us to be reconciled to Him.

When we sin we do so "freely" in that we could choose to do otherwise. For example, when you were 8 years old and you were tempted to steal that piece of gum from the candy store you could have resisted that temptation, even if you didn't. Nothing was FORCING you or MAKING you to STEAL. Understand?

I guess I'm curious as to what you think my system is, since I haven't posted any of my systematic theologies on here. You're accusing me of things based on a few posts. To be honest, I don't feel the need to justify myself before your philosophical wanderings.

That is what I'm attempting to find out by asking you questions. If you go back and read my posts you will see that I never accused you of believe that God makes people sin. I explained that I put "making" you sin in quotes because different Calvinists describe themselves differently. I have NO idea what you believe about these matters and that is why I ask questions. I really don't like being called "uncharitable" when I'm being very cordial and respectful in seeking out your views.

If you don't come here to discuss theological views then I'm not sure why you engaged me in this post, but I really am trying to have a civilized and respectful discussion.

What 'caused' A&E to sin? I don't know all the interworkings of the human will, especially before the Fall.

Ok, finally, an answer. This is what I needed to know in order to examine further into the nature of man after the fall.

If you claim that there is an element of mystery with regard to the inter workings of the human will (and I agree with that BTW), then doesn't it reason to believe there is STILL an element of mystery with regard to the inter workings of the human will after the fall? Is there really any CLEAR and explicit text that speaks of mankind being UNABLE to willingly respond directly to God's appeal to be reconciled to him?

But I can say definitively it was not God. And it's not God who causes man to sin after the Fall. If that is 'inconsistent' with some other Calvinist dude in some other corner of the Internet, I could care less.

But would you agree with the Calvinistic creeds which say that God ordains/decrees all things which come to pass? What do you think that means? Again, I'm not debating you, I'm seeking to understand your views.

I don't even consider myself a Calvinist (don't like the term), and probably don't hold to Limited Atonement (in the traditional Cal sense). You have all these ideas about me and my system based on a few posts,

Good to know, I'm learning more about where you stand with each post. Yes, sometimes I presume those defending the "Calvinistic" system hold to some consistent "orthodox" view with which I'm more familiar, but I'm willing to seek out you individual views and discuss them, but I'd rather not be ridiculed along the way for not being able to read your mind. I ask questions because I want to know where you stand.

but I think all you have are canned arguments that you pull out in every corner of the Internet where you go campaigning against the evil Cals.

Think what ever you want, but you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing by assuming you know me because of a few posts you have read.

Why not simply discuss your views with me in a civil and respectful manner and maybe we can both grow in our understanding of scripture?

 

[AresMan]

I thought I answered this? I believe man is born with the nature to sin, but I don't believe the sin nature makes one unable to respond to God's appeals for us to be reconciled to Him.

If man is "inclined" to sin and "disposed" to sin, what exactly is the rationale for man doing righteously in the sense that pleases God? How does he overcome this "predisposition" of his own self?
If man has libertarian free will as you assert (yet cannot explain logically why people make the choices that they do), then is it possible for a person to be sinless and perfect? After all, if for every the agent could have done otherwise, then is it not totally possible for one to make the correct choice every time? If one is willing to do good all the time, why is it that one, like Paul, has to say "O, wretch man that I am, deliver me from this body of death!" If your answer is that a lack of knowledge suppresses the ability to make all correct decisions, then why should one be held accountable for these wrong choices out of ignorance?

When we sin we do so "freely" in that we could choose to do otherwise. For example, when you were 8 years old and you were tempted to steal that piece of gum from the candy store you could have resisted that temptation, even if you didn't. Nothing was FORCING you or MAKING you to STEAL. Understand?

What was the overriding factor that determines if one yields to the temptation--a strong desire? Of course, I am not suggesting that any outside agent forces one to make a certain decision. That would be coercion. People make choices rationally not randomly. People do things with purpose and not eeny-meeny-miney-moe. Doing things with purpose and reason is what makes people accountable, not that they had to be autonomously "free to do otherwise." Doing things randomly would define insanity and less or lack of accountability. How do you rationally explain why two people under the exact same situation with the exact same levels of "influence" make two different decisions?

To me, so-called "libertarian free will" is just a cop out. It is a circular term to assert something to fill a gap to avoid having to answer a question.

 

[Skandelon]

If man is "inclined" to sin and "disposed" to sin, what exactly is the rationale for man doing righteously in the sense that pleases God? How does he overcome this "predisposition" of his own self?

This is the same type of question that Paul asked when he said, "How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?"

Why couldn't an enemy be reconciled if He gave up his own son for the life of his enemy and sent him a powerful message meant to bring reconciliation? Where in scripture does it ever explain this nature is unable to be reconciled in light of all God did to bring reconciliation? After the Fall this condition is never mentioned among the list of punishments. Why not?

If man has libertarian free will as you assert (yet cannot explain logically why people make the choices that they do), then is it possible for a person to be sinless and perfect?

We can and do explain why people make the choices that they do, though not within the scope of a deterministic system. We explain they are "self determined" in that a choice is determined by the chooser. And act is determined by the actor. Answering the question as to how one came to choose to follow Christ while someone else doesn't is like asking a Calvinist why God chose them instead of someone else. It is a mystery. Whether speaking about our free choice or God's free choice, it matters not, both Calvinists and Arminians must appeal to "mystery."

Now, to your question, "Is it possible for a person to be sinless?" Allow me to answer that question with another question. "Is it possible for a lost person to resist the temptation to sin in any given situation?"

A lost man is tempted to steal a car. Can he resist that temptation and not steal the car? I think we all would agree that he could. BUT, can he resist EVERY temptation for his entire life? No. Like you guys say, "He is able, but not willing." Sin is TOO overpowering.

What was the overriding factor that determines if one yields to the temptation--a strong desire? Of course, I am not suggesting that any outside agent forces one to make a certain decision. That would be coercion. People make choices rationally not randomly. People do things with purpose and not eeny-meeny-miney-moe. Doing things with purpose and reason is what makes people accountable, not that they had to be autonomously "free to do otherwise." Doing things randomly would define insanity and less or lack of accountability. How do you rationally explain why two people under the exact same situation with the exact same levels of "influence" make two different decisions?

Are they the same free agent? No. That is the difference. To ask what determines one agent to choose one way and the another agent to choose another is begging the question because it assumes a deterministic answer is required and presumes the premise that is up for debate. I discuss this fallacy further here.

To me, so-called "libertarian free will" is just a cop out. It is a circular term to assert something to fill a gap to avoid having to answer a question.

The same could be and has been argued with regard to your system. Both systems appeal to mystery at some point on the spectrum.

Let me ask you a question to demonstrate my point: "Could God have not chosen to save you?" In other words, if we suppose Calvinism is true and God did choose to save you, then my question is, could he have done otherwise. Could he have passed you over?

Why or why not?

 

[Andy T.]

I thought I answered this?

Not my question about comparing your beliefs with those of the Pelagian view. How do your views compare to the historical Pelagian view on free will and sin nature?

I believe man is born with the nature to sin, but I don't believe the sin nature makes one unable to respond to God's appeals for us to be reconciled to Him.

I think we should lay aside whether or not man can come to Christ on his own, etc. Right now, we are just talking about sin and man's sin nature. Is man neutral in regards to sin?

When we sin we do so "freely" in that we could choose to do otherwise. For example, when you were 8 years old and you were tempted to steal that piece of gum from the candy store you could have resisted that temptation, even if you didn't. Nothing was FORCING you or MAKING you to STEAL. Understand?

I agree that nothing (outside my own sinful desires) forced me to steal the candy. Theoretically, I could have not stolen the candy - however, I wanted to steal the candy more than I wanted not to, so I stole it.

Also, this doesn't mean that humans sin 100% of the time - there are times they obey (maybe due to some external constraint - like the fear of being caught or being shamed, etc.). Of course, then we could get into impure motives - even a lost man's good work is not done out of pure motives - i.e., not out of pure love for the one, true God.

If you claim that there is an element of mystery with regard to the inter workings of the human will (and I agree with that BTW), then doesn't it reason to believe there is STILL an element of mystery with regard to the inter workings of the human will after the fall?

I'm kind of confused, you appeal to mystery here, but up above you seem pretty confident about man's libertarian free will after the Fall and that every choice is basically a 50/50 chance that a man will choose good or evil.

But would you agree with the Calvinistic creeds which say that God ordains/decrees all things which come to pass? What do you think that means? Again, I'm not debating you, I'm seeking to understand your views.

I addressed this way up yonder - I believe God allows sin to occur and thus ordains/decrees it to occur. But he does not make men sin whatsoever. I believe God has full omniscience and omnipotence - therefore, He has the full knowledge of when and where sin will occur and He has the power to stop it from occurring if He so wills in a given situation. For instance, God could have stopped the 9/11 terrorists and foiled their plot somehow, but He chose not to. There are certainly other times He does foil a bad man's plot to do something. But when God does allow an evil occur (even the littlest sin), He in some sense wills it to occur (His permissive will). But He is not making it occur, since He is not the author of sin. Acts 4:27-28 is a great example of this.

This is a truth that all Cals and non-Cals (those who believe in God's full omniscience and omnipotence) must come to grips with: When God decided to create this world as we know it, at that point, He [permissively] willed that every sin ever committed would occur.

 

[Skandelon]

Not my question about comparing your beliefs with those of the Pelagian view. How do your views compare to the historical Pelagian view on free will and sin nature?

According to sources, Pelagianism "is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid."

And, as I've stated several times, I do believe original sin did taint the human nature and that man's will is only capable of choosing to repent and believe when confronted by the "divine aid" of the powerful, Holy Spirit wrought gospel truth. Understand?

I think we should lay aside whether or not man can come to Christ on his own, etc. Right now, we are just talking about sin and man's sin nature. Is man neutral in regards to sin?

First, we both believe man CANNOT come to Christ on his own, as I just explained.

Is man "neutral" in regards to sin? No. They are inclined to sin, as already stated. Does that mean they must sin in every circumstance? No. Does that mean they cannot respond in faith to God's revelation and appeal to be reconciled? No.

I agree that nothing (outside my own sinful desires) forced me to steal the candy. Theoretically, I could have not stolen the candy - however, I wanted to steal the candy more than I wanted not to, so I stole it.

But the question is could you have done otherwise than what you ended up doing?

(Note: To simply base ones "freedom" on what one desires in a system where God "decrees" even those desires really doesn't avoid the charge of determinism, as the "philosophical" quote explained earlier...which is why I'm trying to clarify your views.)

I'm kind of confused, you appeal to mystery here, but up above you seem pretty confident about man's libertarian free will after the Fall and that every choice is basically a 50/50 chance that a man will choose good or evil.

My appeal to mystery is with regard to the "inner workings" of how a libertarian free choice is made, not whether or not I think the scripture teaches that we have libertarian freedom...i.e. the ability to do otherwise than what we end up doing.

I addressed this way up yonder - I believe God allows sin to occur and thus ordains/decrees it to occur.

Ok, so you believe that God's permitting of sinful motives, acts and choices are equal to his "ordaining or decreeing" them, right?

I agree. Thus, when a man resists the call of the gospel God has merely permitted that sinful choice, he has not "CAUSED it." Whereas, in your system, He is the one who CAUSED their nature to be such that it cannot respond to the gospel, thus He couldn't have merely permitted that sinful rebellion, he directly caused it.

But he does not make men sin whatsoever. I believe God has full omniscience and omnipotence - therefore, He has the full knowledge of when and where sin will occur and He has the power to stop it from occurring if He so wills in a given situation. For instance, God could have stopped the 9/11 terrorists and foiled their plot somehow, but He chose not to. There are certainly other times He does foil a bad man's plot to do something. But when God does allow an evil occur (even the littlest sin), He in some sense wills it to occur (His permissive will). But He is not making it occur, since He is not the author of sin.

I don't disagree with this explanation, but as explained, in a system where the desire/nature of man determines his choices then the one who determines those desires/nature is the direct cause of those choices. In your system, that is God alone....unless you believe differently than most Calvinists and don't believe that God is the one who determines the desires/nature of each man from birth (i.e. by regenerating some and condemning the rest from birth due to the Fall)

 

[Andy T.]

According to sources, Pelagianism "is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid."

And, as I've stated several times, I do believe original sin did taint the human nature...

Ok, who or what determined the taint of original sin on human nature?

Is man "neutral" in regards to sin? No. They are inclined to sin, as already stated. Does that mean they must sin in every circumstance? No.

We agree here. Which gets back to my question above - who or what determined our inclination to sin? You keep accusing me of thinking God puts that inclination in man's heart. I don't, and I assume you don't. We both agree as the result of the Fall, man's nature is inclined towards sin, and we both agree that God does not put that inclination in man's heart. So now you can see why I objected to your original assertion that I think God makes men sin.

But the question is could you have done otherwise than what you ended up doing?

Yes, if I wanted to.

Ok, so you believe that God's permitting of sinful motives, acts and choices are equal to his "ordaining or decreeing" them, right?

Correct.

I agree. Thus, when a man resists the call of the gospel God has merely permitted that sinful choice, he has not "CAUSED it."

Agreed.

Whereas, in your system, He is the one who CAUSED their nature to be such that it cannot respond to the gospel, thus He couldn't have merely permitted that sinful rebellion, he directly caused it.

Nope, don't agree. I don't care if I'm consistent with a particular version of (Hyper-)Calvinism that you are arguing against.

 

[AresMan]

This is the same type of question that Paul asked when he said, "How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?"

He said that because a necessary requirement of believing something is information. How can one believe something unless one has information upon which to respond?

Why couldn't an enemy be reconciled if He gave up his own son for the life of his enemy and sent him a powerful message meant to bring reconciliation? Where in scripture does it ever explain this nature is unable to be reconciled in light of all God did to bring reconciliation? After the Fall this condition is never mentioned among the list of punishments. Why not?

The account of the Fall in Genesis does not specifically relay the effects on the will. However other passages do, particularly in the New Testament:

Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

This passage clearly presents a dichotomy. Those who are in the flesh are obviously lost people as the context in Romans demonstrates. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Believing the Gospel is something that pleases God. These people cannot be subject to the Law of God.
How does one go from being in the flesh (which cannot please God) to being in the Spirit? Well, the Spirit must regenerate and live in someone. If the Holy Spirit does dwell in someone, then that person is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit.

How can one not see the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit being the determining factor between the lost and the saved--the believer and the unbeliever?

Romans 8:28-30 clearly shows the sovereignty of God in saving a people for Himself.

We can and do explain why people make the choices that they do, though not within the scope of a deterministic system. We explain they are "self determined" in that a choice is determined by the chooser. And act is determined by the actor.

Yes, but God acts according to His "strongest desire," right? His counsel shall stand and He shall do all His pleasure.

Pro 19:21 There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Both man and God act according to their strongest desire. With any given choice the theoretical possibility exists to do otherwise; however, one will do exactly what one desires most to do out of all possible options. A will is not freest except it be allowed to do exactly what it most wants at all times. The ability to do always what one most desires is both the maximum freedom and the bondage of the will. To do anything less than what one desires is a definition of insanity.

Your argument for libertarian free will is completely circular. You assert the necessity of libertarian free will for accountability, yet you explain accountability from the notion of libertarian free will. You assume that this label must be true, but you cannot prove it. Your proof is merely based in your assertion.

You call it a "logical fallacy" that the argument against libertarian free will asserts the very determinism which libertarian free will denies. If that is not the definition of circular argumentation, I do not know what is. The "hole" in the philosophy of libertarian free will leads to a form of "determinism;" therefore, the libertarian free will advocate merely asserts that the hole does not exist because the position itself denies it.

Answering the question as to how one came to choose to follow Christ while someone else doesn't is like asking a Calvinist why God chose them instead of someone else.

No, it most certainly is NOT. Man can answer for man, but man cannot answer for God, Who is eternal, above, and beyond man. Apart from what God reveals about Himself in His Word, man does not need to explain or answer for God to refute a false comparison between God's ways and man's ways.

By the way, God keeps His promises and He has elected a people from the foundation of the world. He is not going to change His mind in this respect and discard those whom He has chosen. None of them will be lost, praise God!

It is a mystery. Whether speaking about our free choice or God's free choice, it matters not, both Calvinists and Arminians must appeal to "mystery."

Yes, if the "mystery" lies in God, it is a necessary mystery because Almighty God has not revealed it. If the "mystery" lies in the makeup of man, then it is possible for man to explain man.

Now, to your question, "Is it possible for a person to be sinless?" Allow me to answer that question with another question. "Is it possible for a lost person to resist the temptation to sin in any given situation?"

A lost man is tempted to steal a car. Can he resist that temptation and not steal the car? I think we all would agree that he could. BUT, can he resist EVERY temptation for his entire life? No. Like you guys say, "He is able, but not willing." Sin is TOO overpowering.

Well, if one is truly free in every choice, then it should be technically possible to be perfect, right? Why should mere statistics interfere with libertarian freedom? Could not one have a valid excuse that God stacked the deck against him to force him to sin by virtue of "too many choices"? If lack of information to make the right choice caused imperfection, could not one claim ignorance?

I do believe that the determining factor to make "free" choices lies squarely in man. Man by nature freely, purposefully, and willfully sins without any coercion from God. Obviously, moral accountability comes through purpose, reason, and uncoerced volition, not "the ability to do otherwise." The "ability to do otherwise" removes the choice-specific reason or purpose from a choice and thus removes the grounds for accountability.

Man only does what is truly pleasing to God through intervention from God Himself, like an adult saving a wandering child from a car accident. Not all men have faith (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Those who do have faith have it because God gave it to them for salvation (Philippians 1:29; 1 Corinthians 1:24-26,30-31; James 1:28).

Are they the same free agent? No. That is the difference. To ask what determines one agent to choose one way and the another agent to choose another is begging the question because it assumes a deterministic answer is required and presumes the premise that is up for debate. I discuss this fallacy further here.

In your blog you said:

There are things outside the agent that influence and affect his will, but in order for it to be considered free (and thus morally accountable) the choice itself must not be determined by an outside force. This is called "self-determination" or more commonly referred to as "free will."

Where have I asserted that anything outside the agent determined choices for the agent? That would be coercion. I fully believe in "self-determination." I am nowhere suggesting a tangible reason that I can point to that results in every choice. I am merely asserting that every choice has a reason. This reason caused the choice and this reason came from the will. There is no reason that "self-determinism" necessitates "the ability to do otherwise." One's nature and will determines how one will choose in any situation without coercion. Coercion is one doing anything less than what one most desires. Therefore, libertarian free will seems to appeal inadvertently to a form of coercion through randomness.

The same could be and has been argued with regard to your system. Both systems appeal to mystery at some point on the spectrum.

Yes, but "mystery" in relation to God and "mystery" in relation to man are different. God is eternal, boundless, and beyond man. We cannot fully understand God. However, we can observe and explain our own. Trying to force a comparison and say that an inability to answer for God (apart from His own revelation) necessitates the same inability to answer for man is a category error.

Let me ask you a question to demonstrate my point: "Could God have not chosen to save you?" In other words, if we suppose Calvinism is true and God did choose to save you, then my question is, could he have done otherwise. Could he have passed you over?

Why or why not?

I do know that God does all His pleasure and that He chose a people before the foundation of the world. I also know that He keeps His promises. What I do not know is the reason that He chose me. That is the mystery because God did not reveal it. He chose me for His own reason, but that reason had nothing whatsoever to do with any condition or merit inherent in me.

 

[AresMan]

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

God called His people and gave them Christ as His power and wisdom. We are where we are in Christ because of the power of God in calling us to salvation. Those who are not called in this way, do not receive Christ as power and wisdom unto salvation.

1Co 1:30 But of him [the Father] are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

It is of the Father's doing that we are in the Son! The Father made the Son to us as wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Therefore, knowing that our standing in Christ is in every respect from God through His own calling that results in salvation, one can only glory in the Lord. One can only claim the Lord as the reason that one is saved in any respect from start to finish.

 

[Skandelon]

Ok, who or what determined the taint of original sin on human nature?

Adam and Eve sinned which caused man to become aware of both good and evil and introduced creation to sin, so in that respect man is the cause.

God, on the other hand, chose for all mankind to be affected by that sinful choice (now man's will is affected by both good and evil). God determined that man needed to be reconciled to Him because of the Fall and inherent sinfulness of all mankind. He also, determined, that the solution to that need, explained by the message of reconciliation.

We agree here. Which gets back to my question above - who or what determined our inclination to sin? You keep accusing me of thinking God puts that inclination in man's heart. I don't, and I assume you don't. We both agree as the result of the Fall, man's nature is inclined towards sin, and we both agree that God does not put that inclination in man's heart. So now you can see why I objected to your original assertion that I think God makes men sin.

But in the typical Calvinistic system, from my understanding, God is not only permitting that man is affected (tainted) by sin, but that he is born hardened in sin and thus unable to even respond to the appeal of God to be reconciled. See the difference?

Yes, if I wanted to.

Clever. That doesn't avoid my question or the point of my argument... (nor is it consistent with orthodox Calvinism, after all do you all not appeal to several passages such as John 6, Romans 8, 2 Cor 2 etc that speak of man's inability ("nor is he able"..."no one can"...etc)? In fact, don't most Calvinistic confessions and creeds affirm the statement from this Calvinistic source?

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God.

Why do you quibble about whether I say, "He is unable" verses "He is unable to be willing" as if it somehow avoids the argument or question at hand?

But, even if you insist on this point I can reword the question for you...

Could you have wanted to repent and believe in light of the revelation of the powerful Gospel truth? If not, how is it that the false teaching of Buddhism has the ability to make a man willing to believe it, while the powerful truth of Christianity does not?

Nope, don't agree. I don't care if I'm consistent with a particular version of (Hyper-)Calvinism that you are arguing against.

If God judged the sin of Adam by making him and all his descendants to be born "totally depraved" (which is the claim of orthadox Calvinists, not Hypers), then how is He not the one who CAUSED their nature to be such that it cannot respond to the gospel? Please explain?

 

[Skandelon]

He said that because a necessary requirement of believing something is information. How can one believe something unless one has information upon which to respond?

Correct. And the reverse of that is also affirmed, how can they not be able to believe it when the information is made so clear?

As I asked Andy, why would you think man has the ability to believe false information like that taught by Buddhism, but not true information taught by God himself? Plus, is there something inherently different about Christianity's truth verses every other "secular truth?" How does a man have the ability to believe our world's news, but not our good news?

The account of the Fall in Genesis does not specifically relay the effects on the will.

And doesn't that seem the least bit strange considering that this effect of Total Depravity far outweighs any God takes the time to mention?

However other passages do, particularly in the New Testament:Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

This never speaks of man's inability to respond in faith to the powerful message of the gospel. The word faith/belief nor the gospel is even mentioned.

You believe that man can respond once God does something (regeneration/effectual call); well, so do we. We just don't believe it is an "effectual work." We just believe it can be resisted by man. So, this verse doesn't prove anything that contradicts what we also affirm...that God must do something to enable reconciliation with God. You believe that something is "effectual" for the elect while we believe that something is the "message of reconciliation" sent to every creature. Thus, this passage doesn't even address our point of contention.

How does one go from being in the flesh (which cannot please God) to being in the Spirit? Well, the Spirit must regenerate and live in someone. If the Holy Spirit does dwell in someone, then that person is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit.

The problem you have with that interpretation is that throughout scripture we see men coming to faith prior to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit....but that issue has been and is being hashed out on other threads so I don't see a need in addressing it again here.

Yes, but God acts according to His "strongest desire," right? His counsel shall stand and He shall do all His pleasure.

Does God determine his desires or do his desires determine him? You speak of them as if they are separate. We have many desires and we must choose from options in order to fulfill those desires. But, in the complexity of that choice the agent is the determining factor, not the desires of that agent. Otherwise, how do you distinguish between a morally accountable human choice and the instinctive choices of an animal?

You call it a "logical fallacy" that the argument against libertarian free will asserts the very determinism which libertarian free will denies. If that is not the definition of circular argumentation, I do not know what is.

No, I said the question that was asked asserted the very premise of determinism which the libertarian free will denies and thus was a fallacy of "begging the question." I can't answer a question that presumes the premise up for debate to be true.

The "hole" in the philosophy of libertarian free will leads to a form of "determinism;"

Only if you adopt the premise that all choices are determined by something outside the control of the agent himself. i.e. the lost man's choice was determined by his greatest desire...but his greatest desire was determined by his nature...but his nature was totally corrupt by the Fall...but God chose to judge mankind by totally corrupting their nature. Thus, God determined the choice of the man to refuse the gospel.

Or...the saved man's choice was determined by his greatest desire...but his greatest desire was determined by his nature...but his nature was regenerated and made to desire salvation by God. Thus, God determined the choice of the man to accept the gospel.

In this system, God is the only agent, the only chooser, the only determination and thus there is no basis for human culpability and the system of reward and punishment.

Yes, if the "mystery" lies in God, it is a necessary mystery because Almighty God has not revealed it. If the "mystery" lies in the makeup of man, then it is possible for man to explain man.

Man, who is made in God's image, cannot be fully understood by man. For goodness sake, just look at science. We are still discovering things about our brain, organs and other parts of our bodies that we have never known. To pretend their is no element of mystery as to how man deliberates is naive at best considering just the abundant evidence of speculation, theorizing and intense debate on the subject over the decades.

Well, if one is truly free in every choice, then it should be technically possible to be perfect, right?

First, I never said every choice is "truly free." The libertarian affirms that some choices are "causally determined" in the way a "compatibilist" might explain it.

Plus, I do affirm our need to be reconciled to God from birth. I don't believe a man is born innocent. We are not saved by "not sinning" we are saved through faith in the atoning work of Christ. If someone doesn't enter heaven it is because of their unbelief, not because of they broke God's laws.

I do know that God does all His pleasure and that He chose a people before the foundation of the world. I also know that He keeps His promises. What I do not know is the reason that He chose me. That is the mystery because God did not reveal it. He chose me for His own reason, but that reason had nothing whatsoever to do with any condition or merit inherent in me.

Looking for a yes or no on this one: If we suppose Calvinism is true and God did choose to save you, then my question is, could he have done otherwise? Could he have passed you over?

Feel free to explain why you say yes or no, but please provide a clear answer. Thanks

 

[Andy T.]

Adam and Eve sinned which caused man to become aware of both good and evil and introduced creation to sin, so in that respect man is the cause.

God, on the other hand, chose for all mankind to be affected by that sinful choice (now man's will is affected by both good and evil). God determined that man needed to be reconciled to Him because of the Fall and inherent sinfulness of all mankind. He also, determined, that the solution to that need, explained by the message of reconciliation.

Agreed.

But in the typical Calvinistic system, from my understanding, God is not only permitting that man is affected (tainted) by sin, but that he is born hardened in sin and thus unable to even respond to the appeal of God to be reconciled. See the difference?

Sure, there is a difference between the non-Cal and Cal on the effectual call, etc. But we aren't discussing that - we are discussing man's sin and who is responsible for sin (which we both agree on), not who is responsible for man's salvation.

Clever. That doesn't avoid my question or the point of my argument... (nor is it consistent with orthodox Calvinism, after all do you all not appeal to several passages such as John 6, Romans 8, 2 Cor 2 etc that speak of man's inability ("nor is he able"..."no one can"...etc)? In fact, don't most Calvinistic confessions and creeds affirm the statement from this Calvinistic source?

I wasn't trying to be clever - I was being truthful. You asked a simple question of why I stole the candy, and the answer was I wanted to. And then you once again try to expand the discussion into man's willingness to be saved, etc. I am just focusing on who is responsible for sin - since this all started when you said my system has God 'making' men sin.

Could you have wanted to repent and believe in light of the revelation of the powerful Gospel truth?

Again, this is off-track, since we were originally talking about sin, not salvation. But I will answer anyways: Not without the grace of God.

If God judged the sin of Adam by making him and all his descendants to be born "totally depraved" (which is the claim of orthadox Calvinists, not Hypers), then how is He not the one who CAUSED their nature to be such that it cannot respond to the gospel? Please explain?

Well, we've already established that we both agree that sin comes from man and God does not make man sin. And that includes the sin of unbelief. I gather from your question, that you are objecting to your perceived unfairness of T, U and I in TULIP. To which I answer, God does not have to save anyone - He could send us all to hell. But I'm sure you disagree with that response; ultimately there are always going to be differences in our views.

To explore it a bit further - your response might be that it was unfair for God to judge all of mankind so harshly for Adam's sin and then not give man the innate ability to come to God on his own free will. To which I ask - if you were placed in the Garden instead of Adam, would you have chose differently? Could you have abstained from disobeying for all eternity? Could any man have done that? I believe the answer is no (and anyone who claims they could have done better than Adam has a serious issue with pride), and I believe Romans teaches us that - esp. Romans 5:12. We are all in the same [sinful] boat, and we are there because of us, not God. I guess if you still think that is unfair, you could complain to God that He should have not created man at all.

 

[Skandelon]

Sure, there is a difference between the non-Cal and Cal on the effectual call, etc. But we aren't discussing that - we are discussing man's sin and who is responsible for sin (which we both agree on), not who is responsible for man's salvation.

But, its not the just the effectual call itself that is the problem, it is that the effectual call is NEEDED. The only reason the effectual call is needed is because God determined to make unable to respond to a message meant for everyone.

Isn't this what you believe?
1. Man chooses according to his greatest desire
2. His greatest desire is determined by his nature
3. His nature is "Totally Depraved" from Birth due to the Fall
4. God determined that all men would be born totally depraved from birth because of Adam's sin.

Thus, God is the ultimate cause of the man's choice so as he could not do otherwise...this is the issue of divine culpability to which I'm addressing. It must at least seem somewhat disingenuous of God to ask a man to repent and be reconciled who he has made unable to respond and who He refuses to give that ability, doesn't it?

It's like me asking you to open the door to a room that I locked and I am the only one with a key...and threatening you with severe punishment if you don't and making statements like, "Please open the door, I really desire you to open the door and avoid the punishment," as if I really want you to open the door and as if it really is within your ability to do so. Doesn't that strike you as being very unfair? (not because you deserve opening the door, or that I'm even obligated to let you in, but for me to ask you do it, threaten you if you don't and pretending as if I really genuinely think you can open the door...that seems wrong, don't you think? Be honest. That has to seem disingenuous to you, right?)

I asked: "Could you have wanted to repent and believe in light of the revelation of the powerful Gospel truth?" Not without the grace of God.

So, you don't consider the work of Christ, the apostles, the Holy Spirit and the Church in bringing us the powerful message of the gospel as a work of God's grace? Please explain why.

And what text explicity shows you didn't have that ability in the light of the grace that brought you the gospel truth.

Well, we've already established that we both agree that sin comes from man and God does not make man sin. And that includes the sin of unbelief. I gather from your question, that you are objecting to your perceived unfairness of T, U and I in TULIP. To which I answer, God does not have to save anyone - He could send us all to hell. But I'm sure you disagree with that response; ultimately there are always going to be differences in our views.

No, actually I don't disagree with that particular statement. I agree that God does not have to save anyone and that we all deserve hell. That is NOT the objection. The objection is as I explained above: That God calls all people to faith and repentance. He promises to save whosoever will believe. He expresses his longing to gather, stretching out his arms in desire to see all come to repentance, but he is the one who locked their hearts in their condition and is the only one with the key. That seems wrong to me.... and truth is if the bible really explicitly taught it I would accept it anyway (as I did for years), but honestly I see no passage that I believe teaches this.

To explore it a bit further - your response might be that it was unfair for God to judge all of mankind so harshly for Adam's sin and then not give man the innate ability to come to God on his own free will.

See, this is a point of clarity I'm trying to make... It's not just the ability to "come to God on his own free will," as if God is just passive and man is taking the initiative to seek God. It's man's ability to respond to a God "who is seeking to save that which is lost"...it is a God who sent Jesus to the earth to die, it is a God who sent the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin and teach people of Christ, it is a God who sent the apostles, the scripture and the Church. It is a God who expressing his desire for all to hear the message of reconciliation. See the difference?

 

[Winman]

I agree that God does not have to save anyone and that we all deserve hell.

Skandelon, we agree on most things, but I disagree with you here. And I have seen many others say God does not have to save anyone. That is just not so. God has determined to save as many as he can. He is bound by his own will, mercy, love, and decree to save as many as possible.

2 Tim 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Whether we choose to believe or not, he abideth faithful and cannot deny himself.

But I agree with you, Calvinism makes God the root cause of unregenerate man's unbelief. According to their own doctrine man had free will to believe until God took it away.

I gave the example, if I built a robot that could walk both forward and backward, and then reprogrammed it so that it could only walk backward, who is responsible for the change? Even a child could easily recognize that I would be responsible for this change.

Calvinist's want God to be absolutely sovereign, saying that all things are determined by him, but then try to say God is not responsible for sin. But if God is the cause of all things, then he must be responsible for sin. I quoted a well known Calvinist of the 19th century who said this very thing.

"God does superintend and direct with regard to every instance of sin. He orders how much sin there shall be, and effectually restrains and prevents all that which he would not have take place. Men are, with respect to this, absolutely under his direction and control." From this he proceeds to show that sin could not have originated in the creature, for why should the will put forth a volition contrary to the divinely constituted nature? Nor can it be in the sin itself, for upon that supposition the effect is its own cause, hence we must look to Him who is the First Cause of everything; speaking of the sinner he says, "Something must have taken place previous to his sin, and in which the sinner had no hand with which his sin was so connected as to render it certain that sin would take place just as it does;" his conclusion is, "Moral evil could not exist unless it were the will of God, and his choice that it should exist rather than not. And from this it is certain that it is wisest and best in his view that sin should exist. And in thus willing what was wisest and best, and foreordaining that it should come to pass, God exercised his wisdom and goodness; and in this view and sense is really the origin and cause of moral evil, as really as he is of the existence of anything that he wills, however inconceivable the mode and manner of the origin and existence of this event may be, and however different from that of any other."

Dr. Samuel Hopkins

Of course, many Calvinists will say they do not hold this view, but Dr. Hopkins was just being true to the logical conclusions of Calvinism. In fact, his doctrine was called "consistent Calvinism" because it is consistent.

You cannot claim that God is controlling and determining 100% of all things that come to pass and say he is not the author of sin. That is absolutely illogical.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, we agree on most things, but I disagree with you here. And I have seen many others say God does not have to save anyone. That is just not so. God has determined to save as many as he can. He is bound by his own will, mercy, love, and decree to save as many as possible. .

But as you just said, "God determined to save." He didn't have to make that determination. He could have chosen not to save and still be just in doing so. Why? Because we are guilty.

If God HAS to save someone, its only by his OWN determination to do so, no one elses. And I agree, that because God has made the promise to save whosovever will believe that HE must fulfill that promise. So, prior to his promise he didn't have to save anyone (he didn't owe it to anyone), but once he determined to save and made the promise He committed Himself and he will not break that promise.

 

[Andy T.]

Thus, God is the ultimate cause of the man's choice so as he could not do otherwise...this is the issue of divine culpability to which I'm addressing.

Nope, sorry I don't think God is culpable in man's sin, anymore than you do, even though I could throw up the same charge against you and say God is culpable in man's sin because He decided to create man with the full knowledge (and the power to stop it) that men would sin and sin badly. I just don't follow your argument. Sorry, I just don't see it. Guess I'm either just blind or dumb from your point of view. It would be so nice if we could all agree on these things, but that just ain't the case.

So, you don't consider the work of Christ, the apostles, the Holy Spirit and the Church in bringing us the powerful message of the gospel as a work of God's grace?

Never said that. Where did I say that? The entire 'package' of salvation is by God's grace, including all those things.

And what text explicity shows you didn't have that ability in the light of the grace that brought you the gospel truth.

The usual suspects that we Cals misinterpret, take out of context, or mangle like the devil; John 6, Eph. 2, Romans 1-9.